Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 204 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 14  Next

NetEA Sautekh Legion (Newcrons) 0.4 [Experimental]

 Post subject: NetEA Sautekh Legion (Newcrons) 0.4 [Experimental]
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2013 10:45 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:30 am
Posts: 1480
Location: Örebro, Sweden
Ok here goes!

Me, Ulrik and Lord Aaron started in the spring to discuss the possibility of having a "official" netEA list for necrons after the most recent codex came out for 40k. It changed the background quite heavily and GW added several new units. There have since been even more units added by both GW and Forgeworld (with "The Fall of Orpheus" for instance).

We have been discussing units and rules back and forth and came up with suggestions for stats. Ulrik was clear that he himself didn't wish to lead the development for such a list, but that he'd be willing to take in a sub-list champion. The plan was from the beginning for Lord Aaron to be the list developer. But he has since said the RL have made it hard for him to take on a sub-AC position. Ulrik therefore asked me if I'd be interested.

I have hesitantly agreed. I don't think I'm an ideal candidate for list developer. Mainly because of the amount of gaming (to little :() I'm able to get in these days.

So why do I want to do this then? Do I believe we should make a new list every time a new 40k codex comes out with complementary new units? - No, most certainly not!
I did however (probably in a minority here) find the new codex to be an improvement over the old background and fluff. Secondly Necron were the first army I started together with orks when I got back into epic, but to be honest I haven't find them all that fun to play compared to some of the other armies I play. I've also sometimes got the feeling that they're perhaps not that fun to play against. I see a new list as a way to try and change the play style a bit by looking over the rules. Hopefully make necrons a bit more fun to play with and against.
Thirdly which ties in into the last point, there have been an unusually high number of new units added to necrons and, while I don't think we need to add all, I do think they can increase the options for different tactics when playing necrons.

Attached is a first draft of a list for you guys to rip apart.Image
*hides in nearest corner* This is my first try at list developing... ;)

I will write certain points in my next post that I would especially like input into and also try and detail why I/we have done certain things.

cheers! Image

Edit:
Have uploaded v0.2. Reason for update was that I had missed ponderous on all the portal-WEs.
Aslo changed a few small spelling mistakes. All units with the ponderous rule have fearless so it shouldn't be to big a disadvantage.

I have now also named the list Sautekh Legion


Edit 2014-08-23:
Changes made to v0.3 have been outlined in red. Reasons for changes are stated in this post here


Edit 2014-12-13:
Changes between v0.3 and v0.4 have been outlined in blue. Changes have been compiled in this post.


Attachments:
Sautekh Legion v0.4.pdf [247.27 KiB]
Downloaded 195 times
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NetEA Ne(W)crons 0,1 [Experimental]
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2013 10:47 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:30 am
Posts: 1480
Location: Örebro, Sweden
Ok so changes made to the special rules are:

Phase out gone! It's really not a big part of the 40k codex anymore. But more importantly I want to get rid of it to change the playstile. I don't like it that Necrons get to hide of the table being untouchable after breaking if they don't rally. I don't like it that Monolith formations sort of get a free redeployment after breaking (if they rally of course (which is easier of board as no enemies will be within 30 cm)). I find that these thing sometimes feels like unfair advantages to the opponent. Hack down kills represents phasing out perfectly to me.

The portal-in-engage-portal-out tactic can sometimes feel unfair and boring for your opponent so I wanted to get rid of it. At the same time pouring out of monoliths is what necrons somehow should be about. I took inspiration from the new necron codex (where you can teleport a unit from the table and let it reenter from the monolith gate) and came up with the proposed eternity gate rule. Necrons now instead are stuck on the board (if they don't retreat back to a Tomb complex).

Monoliths/portals getting broken and moving towards the enemy goes into the long debate of how withdrawing towards the opponent sometimes feels wrong and like exploiting the rules. In the case of necrons this is doubly so as it's also a free move of your portals. It feels like an unfair advantage. Therefore I want us to try the ponderous rule, to limit it. I think it's fitting for the monoliths and everyone who has played Dawn of War 1 Necrons will probably agree.
I'm not set in stone on this rule it might be to big a nerf.

We agreed that the new 40k Quantum shielding didn't need a special rule, but rather that reinforced armour was enough to represent it in epic.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NetEA Ne(W)crons 0,1 [Experimental]
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2013 10:48 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:30 am
Posts: 1480
Location: Örebro, Sweden
The new units then Image

Below are a few queries I have myself, but please comment on anyone unit you like. I mean this is only the first draft for a new codex list.

The tesseract Vault
It's the unit with which I have had the most concerns. I want to include it as I think it's quite nice and I'd like to add another WE to the list.

In apocalypse it has to buy two different attacks from a list of 6. Of these 6 attacks 3 are barrages (using one or the other of the big apocalypse barrage-templates. 2 of the remaining ones use the mega-apocalypse-flame-template. So to represent this I want it to have one barrage attack and one short ranged, ignore cover attack.

Any comments on the weapon choices? I chose to base the barrage on the weakest 40k barrage attack, as I wanted to stay away from MW barrage. My biggest concern with the unit is however, how to price it? Please give me your thoughts on a suitable points cost. Am I totally off with 350?

Airplanes
Secondly please help me set points cost for the airplanes. I feel my lack of list building experience showed most with them, I really don't know if I'm way off or close with the points costs. Thoughts?

Tesseract Ark
Any ideas for including this unit? I haven't included it yet. I don't think it should be in a formation of it's own kind. Perhaps as an upgrade to the tomb blades? Along the lines of attack bikes or Vypers. For example "exchange two tomb blade units for 1 Teseract Ark. I'm hesitant as I don't want the formation to go to far into the destroyer formations territory. Should it perhaps not be included at all?
Ideas for stats for the main weapon are welcome? Am I close?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NetEA Ne(W)crons 0,1 [Experimental]
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2013 11:17 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:30 am
Posts: 1480
Location: Örebro, Sweden
I have actually made a first battle report for the list. You can find it here.

cheers


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NetEA Ne(W)crons 0,1 [Experimental]
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2013 11:48 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:24 pm
Posts: 8894
Location: Manalapan, FL
and your How-To post on those very nice flyers and scratch builds is...? ;)

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NetEA Ne(W)crons 0,1 [Experimental]
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 9:27 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:30 am
Posts: 1480
Location: Örebro, Sweden
jimmyzimms wrote:
and your How-To post on those very nice flyers and scratch builds is...? ;)


:) Of course, how could I forget, they will come ;) :D


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NetEA Ne(W)crons 0,1 [Experimental]
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 9:46 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:30 am
Posts: 1480
Location: Örebro, Sweden
Yeah and by the way I know the name is rather silly, I haven't come up with one I like yet. Suggestions?

I'd like for it to be something with Sautekh as that seems to be the most prominent dynasty in the new Codex, and I want the list to represent a general ne(w)crons dynasty thats on the offensive expanding/recapturing their domain.

Sautekh expansionist army?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NetEA Ne(W)crons 0,1 [Experimental]
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 9:53 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:15 am
Posts: 1832
Location: Oslo, Norway
Sautekh Crusade? Or are there enough Crusaders already?

Good luck with this!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NetEA Ne(W)crons 0,1 [Experimental]
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 4:09 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:24 pm
Posts: 8894
Location: Manalapan, FL
Maybe based on the new IA book? Wasn't that all about some Newcrons kicking some imperial butt?

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NetEA Ne(W)crons 0,1 [Experimental]
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:53 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8705
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
I deliberately left out all of the FW Necrons from my Sautekh Dynasty Necron Army List as the FW Necrons are more Tomb World like and not a conquering army.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NetEA Ne(W)crons 0,1 [Experimental]
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 10:44 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 8:54 pm
Posts: 2260
Location: Cornwall
Yeah, i saw those conversions too. Very nice!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NetEA Ne(W)crons 0,1 [Experimental]
PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 12:04 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:30 am
Posts: 1480
Location: Örebro, Sweden
BlackLegion wrote:
I deliberately left out all of the FW Necrons from my Sautekh Dynasty Necron Army List as the FW Necrons are more Tomb World like and not a conquering army.


Yeah I left out the sentry pylons, tomb sentinels and stalkers for that reason. The archantrites I think fit a more offensive list as they're described as being the vanguard. The bomber is also included because I think they fit a more offensive army.

I'm actually kind of undecided on the sentry pylons. They do seem like a more defesive unit, but at the same time if the necrons have the technology, while on the offensive, to teleport in a giagantic pylon, wouldn't teleporting in the smaller sentry pylons be rather easy for them.

The big pylons are a problem that have been discussed before, being so to easy to break (like shown again in my above report). I have therefore added the option of an extra pylon.

If we were to add the sentry pylons to the list, then I don't want them in a seperate formation of their own (that seems more like a defensive thing). There is an apocalypse formation in Imperial Armour Apocaplysoe called a Necrons Pylon network. I've been thinking that maybe we could add the sentry p's as an optional upgrade to the Pylon along those lines. for ex "add two sentry pylons for X points", this would mean that I'd take away the extra big Pylon option. Thoughts about this?

Of course Ulrik has a veto on this subject, if he wants them only in the tomb world list.

Blip wrote:
Yeah, i saw those conversions too. Very nice!

Thanks :)
jimmyzimms wrote:
Maybe based on the new IA book? Wasn't that all about some Newcrons kicking some imperial butt?

Yeah I thought about them, but after reading through the book I don't think they fit the bill. I want a more general dynasty. The maynarkh are described as especially affected by the flayer virus. Their overlords have a special rule called "mark of the flayer". I think they would be better suited for a flayed-one themed list. Thanks for the suggestion though


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NetEA Ne(W)crons 0,1 [Experimental]
PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 12:38 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:15 am
Posts: 1832
Location: Oslo, Norway
Borka wrote:
Of course Ulrik has a veto on this subject, if he wants them only in the tomb world list.


Nah, use your judgement here. I do recommend that you emphasize the attacking nature of the list. Have the Necrons gotten another option for AA in 40k? Pylons kinda make a mockery of distinctions between attacking lists and Tomb World lists, because as you note if they can teleport THAT in, what is stopping them from bringing whatever they want?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NetEA Ne(W)crons 0,1 [Experimental]
PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 12:40 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:32 pm
Posts: 808
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Borka wrote:
I want a more general dynasty.

Sautekh Dynasty then?

_________________
Let there be code.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NetEA Ne(W)crons 0,1 [Experimental]
PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 4:10 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:30 am
Posts: 1480
Location: Örebro, Sweden
Ulrik wrote:
Borka wrote:
Of course Ulrik has a veto on this subject, if he wants them only in the tomb world list.


Nah, use your judgement here. I do recommend that you emphasize the attacking nature of the list. Have the Necrons gotten another option for AA in 40k? Pylons kinda make a mockery of distinctions between attacking lists and Tomb World lists, because as you note if they can teleport THAT in, what is stopping them from bringing whatever they want?


Yeah they do have one, and that is the new 40k Obelisk. (can be made from the same kit as the tesseract Vault). It has a special kind of AA attack that I don't quite know how we would translate into epic without a special rule. Basically all fliers within 24 inch in the shooting phase(both your and the opponents phase) gets an automatic S8 AP4 hit.

As of now I'd rather keep the old epic Obelisk as is. I find it preferable to let as many units as possible have the same stats between raiders and this new list. For continuity between the epic lists. I want people to be able to use their old epic miniatures (be they otterware or conversions), and the new 40k obelisk is actually 6 HullP's, so should probably be a 2 DC WE in epic. I think we can let the current raider obelisk represent the new 40k obelisk as well as the raiders one. The list has already got more AA capabilities (than raiders) with the two fighter planes.
Getting more AA isn't really what I wanted either with the Sentry Pylons but rather make the pylon formation a bit better (ie harder to break).

We can of course always go back and change the obelisk later on. A possible compromise would be to give the epic obelisk an AA attack with range 30 cm, but keep it as an AV. Anyone that's for this?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 204 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 14  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net